For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one.

Can you point us to those comparisons? I have seen very few and those I saw were more pointing towards a very small gap in image quality.

As far as I am concerned, I have never seen a single MFDB shot getting close to the image quality that can be achieved with stitching with a D3x or D800.

I'm speaking about the same testśand reviews thant you. But as I told you in my post IQ is not a question of number. Someone who didn't want to be crude but who if fact 2 words later told about oil and acrylic painting. Wich painting technic gives the best quality ? Is picture taken by an arca-swiss or an alpa tech cam on a 60mpix withn shneider or rodenstock lense specialy designed for it the same IQ than a stitched image out of a D3x ? If you stitch a d3x images you can also stitch a IQ 180images isn't it ? What´s about "Modelé" (sorry don't know the word in english) in that case on a larger print for instance ?

All depends on what means image quality for you. Some people dream of ferrari, other dream of aston martin. One may have better "numbers" than the other one. So what ? It means it is better in all pardigms ?

I'm absolutely not interested in numbers. I've seen pictures taken with a film MF camera who have an inbredible IQ i've rarely seen. For sure it has bad "numbers". I think that oj my viewpoint what comes out of a hassy V has better IQ than what's out a RZ 67. Some think the contrary.

If you stitch pictures out of a D4 you can have the same resolution than a d800. So the D800 inferior in term of IQ than sitched d4 or d3x. So d800 is a useless camera. That´s what you mean ?

Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.

A pet hate I have with digital is what you are seeing, you are showing the extreme but you also get it even with white cloud and sun. It's not that film does not suffer in these situations but it just does it sweeter. Portra neg is the sweetest of the lot when scanned really well.As for the D800 killing MF, what about the sub FF mirrorless killing the DSLR, then of course the Sony RX100 puts up a good case for making the mirrorless obsolete.We just need a really decent Cameraphone and everything else is just jewellery.

The tests I have seen in part point in the opposite direction, D800 having better image quality than MF, so I would be very interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

I have seen a sample of IQ180 clearly outperforming a Nikon D800E in sharpness. But in general image quality, I don't really now,

I agree that it would be interesting to see those other comparisons.

Best regardsErik

Hi Erik,

If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.

If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.

If you're ever in NYC we'd be glad to open our studio and inventory of demo backs to you for such testing at no cost.

Here, Erik, you are absolutely correct! and you won't know until you have used both yourself. The big problem with relying on other people's data is that you can't be sure they rand the tests well. Almost everyone that tests has a bias - and wish to show a certain result. The funny thing is that there are tests out there that show film is still better than both the d800e and IQ 180.

I also looked at shadow detail and Nikon D3X was clearly better on that. The images were used with the permission of the copyright holder.

I also wrote a lengthy article about MF compared to DSLR. For that article I was able to use images by Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley who both own an IQ180 on Alpa and Nikon D800E. Both images were used with the permission of the copyright holders.

I don't think the results would be different if I pressed the shutter release. Using images from other photographers is a good practice in my view.

In the same article I used test images from Alex Koloskov taken with a Hasselblad H4DIII50 and a Nikon D800E. I asked Mr. Koloskov for permission to use his images, but got no response. The only use I made of the images was to check color accuracy on his Color Checker shots. That control was done in LR and using Imatest. The Nikon had more exact colors.

I would add that my article was checked by all contributors. I have made prints from several of the images (using small crops). The differences are in general smaller in print than on screen.

Another article I checked was a comparison of the D800 with a Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 with a Leica S2 and a Leica 100mm f/2 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/diffraction-mosaic.html

In that case the Nikon/Zeiss was sharper in the corners than the Leica.

I use a calibarated Eizo monitor.

I am in no way adversary to MF. On the other hand if someone is asking about low end MF and second hand equipment I think it is responsible to suggest that they also consider DSLR, and the Nikon D800/D800E is at least on the surface the best alternative of those cameras. Highest resolution, best DR at a very reasonable price. Canon 5DIII is another type of camera more geared to high ISO and action, so I think Nikon is the obvious choice.

If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.

If I may voice an opinion: if you try to test the difference between two cameras of similar resolution and different sensor size by selecting the conditions in which these cameras will give the same results, you will find out that the cameras give the same results. And this is a bit what you are doing here.

It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated.

In real photographic practice, however, the cameras are very different in their handling, the lenses will be used at points remote from the ideal conditions which were chosen for the test and the photographers will produce very different images. Which is the point of the exercise: produce images and not just tests.

Forty MP MF is still around, I thin IQ140 is around 40MP and so is the Leica S2. Essentially all lenses are corrected for infinity, but modern lenses have floating elements improving close up performance. I don't know whom you are responding to. The resolution test I posted was with an IQ180 and one the best lenses available for it at absolutely best point of focus, and it was clearly sharper than the Nikon. The Leica S2 vs Nikon was at long distance 30-40m I guess. Subject and lighting does not affect resolution or MTF.

Sorry, your statement "It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated." Simply doesn't say me anything, I simply don't know what you are talking about.

I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess).

If you have done any testing of your own or if you have some reference images taken under controlled conditions demonstrating the effects you are talking about you are most welcome.

If I may voice an opinion: if you try to test the difference between two cameras of similar resolution and different sensor size by selecting the conditions in which these cameras will give the same results, you will find out that the cameras give the same results. And this is a bit what you are doing here.

"It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated."

In real photographic practice, however, the cameras are very different in their handling, the lenses will be used at points remote from the ideal conditions which were chosen for the test and the photographers will produce very different images. Which is the point of the exercise: produce images and not just tests.

"I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess)."

This tells it all.You have over 4400 post and I would guess very many of those are in the medium format threads.

Why so engaged in equipments you do not use!!!I cannot understand any serious working photographer wants advicefrom somebody who just looks at other peoples pictures and form an opinion based on those.

Its so lame.

I respected Fred for a long time, but know, me to, thinks he has gone overboard.All this endless posting about D800 and how bad MFDB is, usingother peoples pictures to "prove" it.

There are 3-4 people destroying MFDB threads with all this comparing and bashing of the very equipment we who use it, wants to have somemeaningful discussion about and sharing of pictures.

And I wonder what for? Envy? Stupidity? Loneliness? Love of science and theoretical photography? Misguided believe in ones own genius?

Maybe I now insults some of you, but I am so fead up with your noise.

Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.

"I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess)."

This tells it all.You have over 4400 post and I would guess very many of those are in the medium format threads.

Why so engaged in equipments you do not use!!!I cannot understand any serious working photographer wants advicefrom somebody who just looks at other peoples pictures and form an opinion based on those.

Its so lame.

I respected Fred for a long time, but know, me to, thinks he has gone overboard.All this endless posting about D800 and how bad MFDB is, usingother peoples pictures to "prove" it.

There are 3-4 people destroying MFDB threads with all this comparing and bashing of the very equipment we who use it, wants to have somemeaningful discussion about and sharing of pictures.

And I wonder what for? Envy? Stupidity? Loneliness? Love of science and theoretical photography? Misguided believe in ones own genius?

Maybe I now insults some of you, but I am so fead up with your noise.

Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.

I don't really why you are so upset by my writing, I try to be polite. I also think I try to keep me to facts.

And one fact is that you don't use any of the gear you write about day in and day out in lengthy posts. And believe it or not: one can see that you don't use the gear you are talking about. It's all just assumptions, collected quotes and collaged hypotheses ... all in all just half-truths.Sorry for that. But it's really not fun to read. At least not for some of the users on this board ...

And one fact is that you don't use any of the gear you write about day in and day out in lengthy posts. And believe it or not: one can see that you don't use the gear you are talking about. It's all just assumptions, collected quotes and collaged hypotheses ... all in all just half-truths.Sorry for that. But it's really not fun to read. At least not for some of the users on this board ...

Regarding film being better than digital I had some interesting communication with Tim Parkin and Dominique Ventzke, so the discussion is not unknown to me. Tim has sent me a scan of Velvia 67 that would have outresolve IQ180. But that image was scanned at 10000PPI.

Here, Erik, you are absolutely correct! and you won't know until you have used both yourself. The big problem with relying on other people's data is that you can't be sure they rand the tests well. Almost everyone that tests has a bias - and wish to show a certain result. The funny thing is that there are tests out there that show film is still better than both the d800e and IQ 180.

Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.

I agree with you on the principle, but notice that 2 threads were started the past few days by posters interested in these comparisons. We are in one of these 2 threads.

It is a very real world question. The question wouldn't be quite as challenging if the backs were priced more reasonnably.

We all know that there are very good reasons to use MF equipment, but the thing is that many photographers considering MFDBs appear not to be that interested in most of those valid reasons... they only hope for better image quality. Whatever that means.

This is an old myth, we've known since the days of 12mp DSLR that tapping in 100% of their potential isn't easy. Technique is an order of magnitude more important than small differences in equipment. But when you look at the facts regarding image quality, you quickly reach the conclusion that DSLRs are close enough that their cost advantage is difficult to overlook.

Frankly I liked shooting with my Mamiya ZD and could afford cash many of the backs on the market today. But having gone there I know that the shooting experience and real world image quality is not always matching the money spent. I got extremely frustrated by small focus errors with my 22mp backs and know that it only becomes worse with higher res backs. Thanks to live view, I never get a D800 tripod shot that is not 100% optimally focused, be it in in pre-dawn light where I can hardly see my feet, and that alone has made my life better.

The reason why I personnally contribute to some of those threads (although a lot less than others) is simply to inform potential buyers about the pitfalls and available options. I am having the hell of an exciting time when I open in C1 Pro 7.02 images shot with the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO mounted on the D800! That lens is a collector, one of the best pieces of glass ever designed by mankind, sharp and smooth at the same time, bokeh to die for, crazy expensive by 35mm standards, and yet... it is cheaper than most MF lenses new. Look no further, this is where the problem lies.

Some of those guys risk their financial life on such a purchase. Is the value there?